Another official with the Indiana State Insurance Department said later that the governor was only supporting the existing policy of that agency.
The state's action was revealed in a discussion that took place before an NAIC task force unit voted to approve a cover letter and format for the survey, which will go to insurers writing $500 million or more in premium. Later, another Indiana official said the decision was made by the department, but the governor supported it.
At that same conference call session, Alabama said it also may not require insurers based there to fill out the survey.
Meanwhile, Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Joel Ario, chairman of NAIC’s Climate Change and Global Warming (EX) Task Force, said NAIC has been in discussion with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which voted Wednesday to require corporate filings to include information on the business impact of climate change and the results of regulations curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr. Ario remarked that “the SEC basically followed our lead” and there would be overlap in the information being sought by the two organizations.
The overall concept of the NAIC’s survey was approved by the main body in March of last year. It would be sent out to the largest insurer in a business group by the state where that operation is domiciled—if the state chose to do so.
Indiana Chief Deputy Insurance Commissioner John Kissling, who revealed Indiana's decision during the conference call said later l that his state’s announcement “is a little bit of a curve for the NAIC. They expected all states to jump on board.”
He said his department would not take part in the survey because “it’s our governor’s position.” Gov. Daniels’ office did not immediately respond to a request for his rationale. Later the state's Acting Insurance Commissioner and General Counsel Doug Webber said the department had opposed it because the survey "makes no meaningful contribution in evaluating company solvency."
The term climate change risk, he said is vague and ill defined and does not spell out what exact perils are involved. "The governor's fine with that position," he explained. (MORE) Go to Original
Tri-State sites considered for possible Kentucky nuclear plant
The assessment is wrapping up as legislation to end what has effectively been a 26-year moratorium on nuclear power cleared the state Senate and awaits a hearing in a House committee. The bill is backed by Gov. Steve Beshear's administration.
“We feel that having the ban in place, we cannot have a meaningful conversation” about nuclear energy, said Len Peters, secretary of the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet. “The utilities just will not come to the table.”
Beshear's 2008 energy plan envisioned putting nuclear energy roughly on par with coal as an electricity source by 2025. Coal supplies more than 90 percent of the state's electricity.
A study conducted for the state by Smith Management Group of Lexington looked at 42 potential sites for a variety of forms of power generation, and identified at least three — all in Western Kentucky — that are worth more consideration for a nuclear power plant. (MORE) Go to Original
The coal ash industry manipulated reports and publications about the dangers of coal combustion waste, reports Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The group stated that the Environmental Protection Agency allowed the multibillon-dollar coal ash industry to have virtually unfettered access to the EPA during the Bush administration and now under President Obama.
As a result of the industry's formal relationship with the EPA, insiders were allowed to edit and ghostwrite publications and official reports on the effects of coal waste. The documents obtained by PEER indicate that the coal ash industry "watered down official reports, brochures and fact-sheets to remove references to potential dangers" of coal ash waste. Additionally, the so-called "environmental benefits" of coal ash were repeatedly aggrandized.
"For most of the past decade, it appears that every EPA publication on the subject was ghostwritten by the American Coal Ash Association," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, whose group examined thousands of coal industry and EPA communications. "In this partnership it is clear that industry is EPA's senior partner."
There is little debate that coal ash is toxic, despite what the wavering EPA and steadfast coal industry purport.
Coal ash is the sludgy muck that is left over after coal is burned to produce electricity and is often laden with heavy metals like arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead and selenium. These harmful substances can produce cancer, kidney problems and nervous-system disease. The amount of heavy metals in coal-ash depends largely on the type of coal burned. However, all coal produces this waste, even though the toxicity may vary slightly depending on the type of coal being incinerated. (MORE)
January 26, 2010-Lexington, KY. Press release from the pseudonym Midnight Activist. Student pressure on campuses throughout the midwest is beginning to take on a more visible form.
An anonymous group of students from the University of Kentucky hung a banner from a parking structure near Rose Street to protest the university’s use of coal power on campus. The banner, reading “COAL: A Tradition of Oppression. STUDENTS: Let’s Change Our Legacy”, included a reproduction of the familiar UK symbol, with a burning smokestack between the letters instead of the usual Memorial Hall steeple.
Deemed the “midnight strike force” by local news sources, the students are fueling a campaign to move the university beyond the “outdated” technology of coal power and in the direction of cleaner energies. One of the students, an economics and environmental studies senior, said, “You can’t argue facts. Coal is a finite resource and the shift to alternative energies has to begin immediately. Kentucky must realize its potential to be progressive and enterprising in the country’s transition toward environmental awareness.”
The students’ use of the word “oppression” alludes to the detrimental effects of coal not only on the environment, but on the miners and communities in coal-mining regions of the state. An estimated 12,000 coal miners have died from black lung in the past decade, and their families are equally affected. The real tragedy, though, lies in mountain top removal (MTR) coal mining, a practice that more and more coal companies are using to extract coal at a lower cost. MTR employs explosives to decapitate mountains, and the leftover waste is deposited in surrounding valleys. The chemicals and residue bury and contaminate freshwater streams, thus poisoning the water supply for surrounding communities and devastating local ecosystems.
While the university, directly, does not deal in MTR coal, Kentucky Utilities provides a significant portion of the campus’s power, and is a known distributor of energy derived from the controversial method.
“The University of Kentucky is the flagship university of the state, and as such, sets the example for the rest of Kentucky. Any change we can make toward cleaner energy and the diversification of jobs and economies will affect the entire Appalachian region drastically, and for the better. This change is one that can’t wait,” said an Appalachian Studies junior.
It seems momentum has not died from the announcement last semester that the new Wildcat Coal Lodge would be endorsed by the coal industry. Tuesday’s banner was one of a series that has hung on campus since October, indicating that the students have not forgotten President Todd’s decision, and that they still worry for the future of their school’s energy and integrity.
In the past two decades Herons have made a tremendous comeback from a time when they were rarely seen in this region to being the most common of the big birds of the area.
In this picture, there are three types of birds. White gulls, which are a transient feature and found mostly during the winter months in the Evansville area and of course, Mallard ducks which are also transient in nature but are easily seen anywehre there is water in the Tri State year around. Discover More about Herons
Coal tax breaks cost Kentucky more than $111 million a year
January 10, 2010-by John Cleves in the Lexington Herald Leader. In 2009, MACED published a report showing that the coal industry takes $115 million more from Kentucky's state government annually in services and programs than it contributes in taxes, due in part to the tax breaks.
This winter, before the General Assembly decides how much further it may have to cut education, social services and public safety to balance the budget, more than $111 million is already off the table.
That's the estimated annual total for tax breaks devoted to the coal industry. The next year, regardless of Kentucky's fiscal health, it's set to rise to almost $114 million, or as much as Kentucky spends on its Department of Juvenile Justice.
These exemptions in the sales and coal-severance taxes make it cheaper for mining companies to dig for coal and for utility companies to burn it to produce electricity.
When the legislature passed the first of them, in 1960, coal was a major industry in Kentucky. But in the past three decades, the number of people employed in coal mining has fallen from about 50,000 to fewer than 20,000, which is only about 1 percent of the state's workforce.
At the same time, concerns have arisen about coal's role in global warming. Climatologists and other scientists believe that the gases produced by burning fossil fuels gradually increase the Earth's temperature. Studies also link pollution from coal-fired power plants to lung cancer, heart attacks, asthma and other ailments.
Now, as other states and countries look at different energy sources, from natural gas and nuclear power to solar and wind energy, critics say Kentucky seems locked onto coal, even at the cost of subsidizing it.
"We clearly are more interested in making it cheap to burn coal than we are looking at some of the alternatives emerging out there," said Jason Bailey, policy director for the Mountain Association for Community Economic Development in Berea. (MORE) Go to Original
Easterly: IDEM to revise BP permit-Admits agency failed to account for all emissions
January 8, 2010-by Gitte Laasby in the Gary (IN) Post Tribune. Tom Easterly has been IDEM's commissioner since early 2005. In that time IDEM has taken pride in their ability to issue permission for polluters to pollute, almost to whatever extent they desired. Recently a coalition of groups petitioned USEPA to "de-Delegate" IDEM's authority to regulate and enforce the nation's water laws. Pictured: Easterly.
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management likely will rewrite BP Whiting's air permit, Commissioner Tom Easterly told the Post-Tribune on Thursday.
A coalition of environmental groups sued IDEM and BP in May 2008 for not accounting for all air pollution from the expanded refinery, including new flares that burn off excessive gas.
On Thursday, Easterly said staff at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has convinced him not all emissions were accounted for in the permit.
"She showed us we simply didn't remember about certain changes that are there, so the emissions weren't accounted for. So they have to be accounted for. That's true," Easterly said following a presentation in Portage.
A lead counsel in the court case, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council Ann Alexander, said she was happy about Easterly's acknowledgement, but called it "an admission of the blindingly obvious that's been clear to the rest of us for some time now."
Alexander didn't buy Easterly's explanation that IDEM forgot pollution resulting from modifications at the refinery.
"I'm not sure which emissions he might have been referring to, but the ones referenced in EPA's (objection) order would be hard to forget about. I'm not sure one can readily forget there are going to be three new flares constructed in the new project," she said.
By request from the environmental coalition, the EPA objected to the permit in October 2009, saying IDEM underestimated air pollution, especially from flares.
Easterly would not elaborate on which emissions were left out.
"We have to figure out what those emissions are and how they affect the permit," he told the Post-Tribune. "We are going to fix this. Most likely, we'll issue a revised permit."
Easterly indicated BP is partially to blame for the omission because the company did not identify all sources of air pollution.
"We repeatedly tell people, it's their responsibility to identify all the emissions points. We try to help by saying, 'Have you looked at this and that?'" he said.
BP spokesman Tom Keilman said BP has "a legitimate permit to operate" but is working to provide IDEM with data.
"We believe we submitted all the information and followed what was necessary for us to receive the permit," he said. "The permit was issued by IDEM and we believe we had a valid permit at the time."
Alexander said it was IDEM's job to check whether BP's emission estimates were accurate.
"IDEM is responsible for protecting the public. That's not supposed to be a passive role. It's their job to determine what the emissions are going to be and not blindly taking the applicant's word for it," she said. "They're supposed to provide the adult supervision."
None of the parties would comment on how Easterly's admission might affect the court battle over the air permit. The case is pending with the state's Office of Environmental Adjudication, which reviews IDEM's permits. Go to Original
EPA ditches Bush Ozone Standard and seeks comment on one that is stronger
January 7, 2010, By John Blair, valleywatch.net editor. In 2008, for the first time in history, USEPA ignored the advice of it's science panels and staff and implemented a rule that allowed levels of ozone that were not protective of public health.
Today, USEPA took a giant step to undo one of the major environmental health fiascoes of the former Bush administration by proposing a new ozone standard that is more stringent than the one signed into rule by then EPA Administrator, Stephen Johnson.
IN March 2008, Johnson ignored the advice of his own staff and science panels and declared that an ozone standard of 75 parts per billion although EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) had suggested a standard no higher than 70 PPB and as low as 60 PPB.
Johnson sought to explain his decision by claiming that a stronger, protective standard was not good due to economic reasons and said he would seek Congressional approval to incorporate financial costs into the setting of standards, something Congress specifically prohibited when it enacted numerous versions of the Clean Air Act and its amendments over the last three decades.
In its "fact sheet" published today with the new proposal, EPA said, "EPA is reconsidering the ozone standards to ensure that two of the nation’s most important air quality standards are clearly grounded in science, protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, and protect the environment. The ozone standards set in 2008 were not as protective as recommended by EPA’s panel of science advisors, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. The proposed standards are consistent with CASAC’s recommendations.
EPA is seeking public comment on the proposed standard and will accept written comments for sixty days after the proposal is published in the Federal Register. They will also hold three public hearings on February 2 in both Arlington, VA and Houston, Texas and on February 4 in Sacramento, California.
The "final" standard will be issued by August 31, 2010.
The proposed rule and documentation supporting it can be found by going to the link below. Find out more from EPA
Investing in coal is dysfunctional
December 31, 2009, by Jeremy Leggett, in the UK Guardian. Power companies, investment bankers and pension fund managers are fuelling an unlivable future – with our money.
The acid test of the Copenhagen climate change summit was always going to be coal. Had governments managed to come up with a meaningful agreement, those who seek to continue burning coal would have faced significant risk that they would be spending their money on what investors call "strandable" assets – assets that become obsolete and therefore worthless. And for their part, financial institutions would have had to think twice whether they should keep pouring billions of dollars into new coal-fired electricity generation, seeking short-term returns while knowingly fuelling future climate ruin that is not costed in today's books.
But there was no meaningful agreement. And so we see the first in the queue to foist coal horrors upon us already knocking at the door. Since Copenhagen, E.ON has announced that any further emissions cuts by the company will depend on governments making progress in 2010 in the climate negotiations. E.ON and Centrica have both said they are less likely to build coal plants attempting carbon capture and storage. We can expect to see similar sentiments from most of the other big energy companies. Enlightened business leadership ahead of legislation is not their bag. More plans for unsequestered coal, without trapping and burying the carbon dioxide, will be the best we can expect.
To be fair to the power companies, the fault is wider. Most investors expect this behaviour of them. Most banks, insurance companies and pension funds are happy, as things stand, to continue investing in coal.
When it comes to the London Stock Exchange, they will have their first major chance soon. The largest Russian steam coal producer is eyeing an initial public offering in London during the first half of 2010. Suek, owned by two oligarchs, is worth $8-9bn (£5-6bn), and will be floating as many as a quarter of its shares. As one anonymous banker put it to Reuters: "There haven't been any good opportunities in this sector for a long time, and the sector is on its way up, so therefore this will be a positive story."
Of course, at the same time, those buying shares will be fuelling long-term wealth destruction – let me not be so base as to mention killing people to boot, let's stick to the money – by stoking climate change. This is the bottom line with the dysfunctional form of capitalism we have allowed to evolve. And the most galling thing is this: the bonus cultists are doing it, in large part, with our money.
A pension fund manager invests billions built up from tiny parcels of the peoples' pension contributions. He is rewarded, like everyone else in the temples of finance, on the basis of short-term returns. That the pension holder might retire into a world that is increasingly unliveable because of the actions of his fund manager features nowhere in any bonus calculation. (MORE) Go to Original
New Loan-Guarantee Bailout for New Nuclear Reactors Puts U.S. Taxpayers at Risk as Department of Energy Hands Over $Billions
Ironically, the DOE's "top choice" for the nuclear reactor loan guarantees, which are backed by U.S. taxpayers in the event of defaults, is the very same Plant Vogtle that helped to kill the previous nuclear power boom in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. Huge cost overruns at the original Plant Vogtle - which escalated from $660 million for four reactors to a whopping $8.87 billion for two - likely played a role in putting the brakes on nuclear expansion plans pursued decades ago in the United States. Will history repeat itself on Plant Vogtle cost overruns?
Higher bills and costly delays may already be in the works at Plant Vogtle. According to news accounts in early December 2009: "The proposed construction of two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro could likely have cost overruns and possibly face delays, according to testimony released by the Georgia Public Service Commission. The group monitoring the progress of the new reactors is also being denied access to crucial information about the process, and Georgia Power is not revising economic evaluations based on a variety of factors that include a reduced demand for electricity and cheaper alternatives to nuclear energy, the document says." Such developments for the proposed new Plant Vogtle reactors could parallel the current fiasco in San Antonio, Texas, where another would-be DOE loan guarantee is facing local rejection of a new reactor project that is plagued with a $5 billion cost overrun that amounts to 27 percent of the initially projected budget. (MORE)
EPA Requires IGCC Plant to Consider Fuel-Switching to Natural Gas in Order to Meet BACT Requirements
December 20, 2009-by Troutman Sanders LLP in the Washington Energy Report. Valley Watch and Sierra Club challenged the original permit issued to Cash Creek Generating on numerous grounds. We won on this one and others. Now, kentucky has decided to issue yet another permit, even as this EPA decision is issued and will hold a hearing on it on January 15 @ 6:30 PM in the henderson County Courthouse.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson issued a decision on Thursday requiring the Kentucky Department of Air Quality (KDAQ) to consider whether the proposed Cash Creek Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant should consider generating electricity with natural gas rather than the syngas produced in the gasification process. The decision was issued in the context of determining the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements in Cash Creek’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit. EPA said that natural gas might be a lower polluting fuel than syngas.
KDAQ maintained that natural gas should not be considered as BACT for an IGCC plant because doing so would “redefine the source.” Historically, an applicant for a PSD permit has not been required to “redefine” its proposed facility in order to comply with BACT – for instance, to build a nuclear facility instead of a coal facility. Using natural gas instead of syngas in an IGCC arguably redefines the nature of the facility since the purpose of an IGCC plant is to gasify coal and then burn the syngas to generate electricity. Using natural gas instead of the syngas arguably transforms an IGCC plant into just a combined cycle plant and would eliminate the need to gasify coal.
EPA did not order KDAQ to determine that the developer must utilize natural gas instead of syngas in order to meet BACT requirements. It said instead that KDAQ must provide a better explanation of why substituting natural gas for syngas would redefine the source. It also said that the decision should not be seen as EPA opposition to IGCC in general.
The decision has potentially significant implications as EPA nears final promulgation of regulations that would trigger BACT requirements for CO2 in the PSD permit process. Environmentalists have been arguing that BACT for a coal plant should include switching to natural gas and other, non-CO2 emitting sources including renewables and demand-side management, as a way of reducing CO2 emissions.
EPA has convened a task force to consider potential GHG BACT requirements, and that task force is expected to make recommendations on the issue to EPA’s Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) at the end of January. One of the issues the task force is considering is the redefining the source issue.
Based on the work of the task force and CAAAC, EPA has indicated that it hopes to have GHG BACT guidance available when states must begin making GHG BACT decisions in the Spring.
The PSD permitting process — and the extent to which fuel-switching may be required as BACT — is likely to become a major battleground in determining the future role of coal for electric generation Go to Original
Groups petition EPA to strip IDEM of authority to regulate Clean Water Act
December 17, 2009-by John Blair, valleywatch.net editor. For years, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management has has operated as a state economic development agency, ignoring the actual function it is supposed to fulfill. Recently, it is becoming increasingly clear that IDEM is not functioning as intentioned.
Today, three groups, the Environmental Law and Policy Center, Hoosier Environmental Council and the Hoosier Chapter of the Sierra Club filed a petition with USEPA demanding that EPA "evaluate the systematic failure of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to properly administer and enforce the NPDES program."
Acknowledging that many IDEM staffers are "skilled and dedicated," the petition lists eight specific failures of IDEM to properly administer the federal program designed to protect Indiana waters from permitted industrial emissions.
Specifically, the groups' petition lists: • The Indiana Legislature has enacted legislation that requires IDEM to issue permits that do not conform to the procedural and substantive requirements of the Clean Water Act; • Indiana has failed to develop provisions that would restore waterbodies recognized as impaired waters and continues to issue permits that exacerbate known impairments, inconsistent with Tier 1 antidegradation requirements. 40 CFR § 131.12(a)(1) and 40 CFR §§ 122.4, 122.44. • IDEM has failed to exercise control over new and increased discharges as required by the Clean Water Act’s Tier 2 antidegradation regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(2); • IDEM has failed to exercise control over pollution from coal mining and processing operations as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.4, 122.28, 122.44, 124 and 131.12; • IDEM has repeatedly issued NPDES permits that do not conform to the requirements of the Clean Water Act; • IDEM has failed to comply with the public participation requirements of the applicable NPDES permit regulations; • IDEM has failed adequately to inspect and monitor facilities subject to NPDES permitting requirements; and • Indiana has developed general permits that systematically allow discharges that are not subject to proper water quality-based effluent limits.
The petition says that "EPA should take immediate action to correct Indiana’s NPDES program or withdraw the delegation of the program from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management."
Hopefully, this will be the first such action and similar petitions will follow regarding air and waste as well as stripping DNR of its ability to enforce federal coal mining laws.
December 7, 2009-Peter Sinclair's Cimate Denial Crock of the Week examines the flap over the stolen emails that some pop culture global warming deniers have used to claim that Climate Change is a hoax.
"The Story of Cap and Trade" from the people who created the Story of Stuff
December 2, 2009-The same people who made the wonderful animation called "The Story of Stuff" have done it again with a great explanation of Cap & Trade and how it works.
November 29, 2009-By Anna Fahey in Grist., The finding is based on the experience of black and Dominican-American families living in the New York City area. Specifically, it indicates that high prenatal exposure to these compounds—automobile exhaust is one example—translates into lower IQ scores by the time a child reaches the age of 5 years.
Early in my pregnancy I developed a bloodhound’s sense of smell: even the faintest of odors overwhelmed me. It’s a common phenomenon during the first trimester of pregnancy, yet my new nasal superpower took me by surprise—and forced me into an unwelcome awareness of the pollution that surrounds all of us. Car and truck exhaust, to my unusually acute nose, was pure poison. It made me recoil, hold my breath, gag, choke. My new super-nose could detect the smell all over the place—waiting at the bus stop in my quiet Seattle neighborhood, wafting through 5th floor downtown office windows, even at the park and in my own backyard. I realized, perhaps for the first time, that the air I breathe really stinks.
And just as my pregnancy had heightened my sense of smell, it also intensified my concern about what was entering my body with every breath. The well being of a clump of tissue no bigger than a lima bean became my top priority—making me more concerned than ever about the purity of the food, water, and air that was nourishing both of us (or not).
Of course, the professional side of my brain had been thinking about the links between pollution and health for years. (Working at a sustainability think-tank will do that to you.) But pregnancy personalized the issues. It turned a hypothetical threat to the imagined families I held in my mind’s eye, into a very real one that affected my own life and my potential child’s future. My work at Sightline on climate and energy policy started to be more about my body and my family than simply about curbing climate change and stabilizing energy prices over the next decade. It’s about the air I’m breathing—and breathing for two—right now!
Two thoughts struck me as particularly scary. First: this is the air we breathe all the time. It just happens that only first-trimester pregnant ladies (and perhaps dogs with their heads out car windows) get the full olfactory impact. Do we really know what air pollution does to our bodies? To embryos?
Second: we’re all incredibly complacent about what we breathe. Is it because we can’t smell it—at least, not until the first trimester of pregnancy? Do we wait for our cities to be as polluted as Bangkok or Los Angeles before we start to take action? (And, for that matter, are pregnant women in Bangkok and Los Angeles pounding down their elected officials’ doors, demanding cleaner air? As far as I know, they’re not).
Part of our complacency about air quality may stem from an unspoken belief that the health of a child is solely a mother’s personal responsibility. Mass-market books and magazines, for example, dwell on solely on a mother’s personal choices during pregnancy: alcohol and cigarettes, vitamins and diet. Pregnant women are advised to avoiding household toxics like harsh cleaners, lead paint, or garden pesticides. (MORE)
November 25, 2009-by John Blair, valleywatch.net editor. It seemed like a lot of money but the $1 billion Duke first sought from regulators to build their plant in Edwardsport, IN now seems like a bargain. This week, Duke was back asking for the blood of ratepayers to build their money machine that could cause the Indiana economy to falter.
In another of seemingly endless rate increases that Duke has sought to build their experimental plant in SW Indiana, this one is drawing criticism from consumer advocates that enough is enough.
Trotting back before the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, chaired by the former counsel for the utility, Duke this week asked for another $150 million to build what they are calling a "clean coal" plant to justify placing the requested money immediately in their "ratebase", for which they can draw a whopping 13% return even if the plant is never finished or placed into service.
When Duke first proposed the plan in 2005, they told legislators and regulators the cost would be just $1 billion, but by the time they went through public hearings in August of 2007, the costs had ballooned to $1.9 billion.
Valley Watch, an "intervenor" in the original case, argued at the time, that the cost would surely rise and that Duke had "lowballed" their actual cost to gain support of politicians and regulators. Valley Watch was soon proven correct when shortly after Duke gained approval for the $1.9 billion investment, they came back before the IURC asking for a large increase, raising the stakes to a whopping $2.35 billion and that did not include money to capture and sequester their more than 4 million tons of carbon dioxide which was supposed to be the rationale for the plant in the first place.
For that, Duke was granted more than $17 million of ratepayer funding to study if CCS was even feasible at the site. The study found that the Mt. Simon sandstone, that underlay the region, was insufficiently "porous" to accept CO2 for permanent storage.
So Duke did the only thing they could, they asked the Commission for yet another $120 million to "study" the feasibility further, looking to myriad alternatives in and out of Indiana.
Separately, this week, Duke asked for another $150 million to cover "modifications and growth in the project's scope," bringing the amount to build the plant to a huge $2.5 billion.
Unfortunately the exposure for Duke's Indiana customers is not likely to end at that figure since in Duke's press release, they proclaim, "Duke Energy Indiana is asking the commission to schedule a separate proceeding by next March, when most of the project’s engineering will be complete, so that the company can provide a more detailed, revised cost estimate."
"The company will use the next few months to examine future cost projections associated with labor, engineering, procurement and plant start-up. After next spring, labor costs will be a key variable driving the final project cost. We worked with General Electric, Bechtel and other design firms to perform an engineering study early on; however, as engineering progressed, the scope of the project has increased,” said Duke Energy Indiana President Jim Stanley.
Should they finally decide to capture and store their CO2 emissions the US Department of Energy has estimated that such endeavors will add as much as 50% to the project cost.
Duke has already estimated that overall rate increases to pay for the plant without the CCS fees, or the latest increase, will exceed 18%, but history indicates that for residential customers, that increase will exceed 25%.
Valley Watch has joined the Citizens Action Coalition, Save the Valley, and the Sierra Club to oppose this and previous efforts to place this plant into the Duke ratebase, knowing that our economic analysis has shown exactly what is happening would happen.
Unfortunately, the chairman of the commission, David Lott Hardy, is actually a former Duke counsel and has made repeated appearances around the state expressing his support, not only for the plant, but for Duke's plan. Is it any wonder the Commission always supports the North Carolina based utility?
But the insidious corruption does not stop there. The Office of Consumer Counselor, the state agency empowered to represent consumer interests in rate matters, has also been in lock step with Hardy and Duke, supporting nearly every facet of the case even when it was clearly outside the interests of the consumers they are duty bound to represent.
Sadly, the conspiracy does not end there since two nationally known so-called environmental groups have actually intervened on behalf of Duke's efforts. The Clean Air Task Force which Valley Watch has called the Clean Air Task Farce and the Indiana Wildlife Federation, an affiliate of the national Wildlife Federation, have both gained Duke's favor by shilling for them in the various rate proceedings before the IURC. Both organizations have been the recipient of massive funding from the pro coal Joyce Foundation, a Chicago based philanthropy that has a history of pushing easy ways out for the nation's utilities through things like cap and trade and carbon offsets.
Coal Pollution Damages Human Health at Every Stage of Coal Life Cycle, Reports Physicians for Social Responsibility
November 18, 2009- A press release from Physicians for Social Responsibility regarding the enormous health impacts that come from coal. The complete report is downloadable by clicking the link.
Physicians for Social Responsibility today released a groundbreaking medical report, "Coal's Assault on Human Health," which takes a new look at the devastating impacts of coal on the human body. By examining the impact of coal pollution on the major organ systems of the human body, the report concludes that coal contributes to four of the top five causes of mortality in the U.S. and is responsible for increasing the incidence of major diseases already affecting large portions of the U.S. population. A copy of the full report can be found at http://www.psr.org/coalreport.
"The findings of this report are clear: while the U.S. relies heavily on coal for its energy needs, the consequences of that reliance for our health are grave," said Alan H. Lockwood, MD FAAN, a principal author of the report and a professor of neurology at the University at Buffalo.
"These stark conclusions leave no room for doubt or delay," said Kristen Welker-Hood, SCD MSN RN, PSR's director of environment and health programs. "The time has come for our nation to establish a health-driven energy policy that replaces our dependence on coal with clean, safe alternatives. Business as usual is extracting a deadly price on our health. Coal is no longer an option."
Also participating in the report's release were the American Lung Association and the American Nurses Association...
Based on the report's findings, PSR issued five policy recommendations:
• Cut emissions of carbon dioxide as deeply and as swiftly as possible, with the objective of reducing atmospheric carbon levels to 350 parts per million, through 1) strong climate and energy legislation that establishes hard caps on global warming pollution coming from coal power plants, and 2) strict enforcement of the Clean Air Act.
• Reduce fossil fuel power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides so that all localities are in attainment for national ambient air quality standards.
• Establish a standard, based on Maximum Achievable Control Technology, for mercury and other hazardous air pollutant emissions from electrical generation.
• End all new construction of coal-fired power plants, so as to avoid increasing health-endangering emissions of carbon dioxide, as well as criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants.
• Develop the capacity to generate electricity from clean, safe, renewable sources so that existing coal-fired power plants may be phased out without compromising the nation's ability to meet its energy needs.
Valley Watch proud of its role in new SO2 health standard
November 17, 2009-Press release from Valley Watch regarding the proposed new health standard for Sulfur Dioxide. Valley Watch and Center for Biological Diversity sued EPA to force them to adopt a new standard since they had failed to do so for more than thirty years.
A law suit against the USEPA, brought by the Center for Biological Diversity based in San Francisco and Valley Watch, based in Evansville, IN has successfully resulted in EPA, today proposing a new, tougher National Ambient Air Quality Standard for sulfur dioxide.
"This is long overdue, since the standard has not been revised or even revisited since it was first established more than thirty years ago. While we still have a long way to go to deal with the effects of the poisonous gas to determine the final standard EPA will set, this is a gigantic step to correct a major deficiency in the Clean Air Act's implementation," said, John Blair, president of Valley Watch, Inc. and Evansville group whose purpose is to "protect the public health and Environment of the lower Ohio River Valley."
Blair went on, "It is clear from the map EPA published today showing that people in coal country are again held as guinea pigs in a morbid experiment that has coal at its center. Coal is killing us and the planet in multiple ways, from when it is taken from the earth through ecological destructive means, to burning it which results in acid rain, air pollution and mercury deposition, to the disposal of huge quantities of ash and sludge that threaten the quality of life and water supplies for entire regions where that waste is stored."
As the map clearly shows, much of the region fails to meet the proposed health standard for sulfur dioxide mainly due to the more than 15,000 megawatts of coal plant capacity in the immediate region.
Today's action is a culmination of a suit we first filed in early 2005. We had a wonderful partner in the suit and one of the best air attorneys in the nation, Robert Ukeiley, working on our behalf.
Valley Watch is proud to again have been a part of the establishment of a new air quality standard. This is the second time in three years that we have been successful in the establishment of air quality standards that are more protective of human health than those before it. The first time came in March 2008 when EPA, at the urging of Valley Watch threw out the "rounding protocol" for ozone which allowed for standards to be rounded 'up.'
It is certain that Valley Watch will be filing comments after thoroughly reviewing the EPA proposal and it is also further certain that Valley Watch will continue in its mission to improve the health of the citizens of the Illinois Basin whom for too long have lived in a sacrifice zone for the nation's wasteful energy consumption. Learn More
INDOT goes #@(* crazy
November 15, 2009, by Gregory Travis in the Bloomington Alternative. Ed. Note: This story coupled with the story below about another Indiana government agency abusing its power below is a really bad indication of how the administration of Mitch Daniels has apparently decided that federal law no longer applies to Indiana. Why the legislature, particularly the democrat controlled House remains mute is a mystery.
I've written about this before, and it's time to write again. As predicted, the state (as in Indiana) has decided to petulantly go forward with officially punishing Bloomington and Monroe County for being anything but grease on the I-69 skids.
But first, a quick redux. There exists something called a Metropolitan Planning Organization, or MPO. There exists also something called the Indiana Department of Transportation, or INDOT. And there exist local, state and federal governments.
Some time ago, the federal government decided that it wasn't going to give out money to the states, for road projects, unless it could be assured that it would be money well spent. Toward that goal the feds wanted to make sure that the money was needed, that it was wanted, and that it would be spent efficiently and effectively...
Only one little problem with INDOT's plan. First, there isn't actually any money to build the highway. Second, there's a gigantic pain in the ass down south that goes by the name of Bloomington. Okay, two problems.
Bloomington's City Council has, in the past, passed resolutions opposing the I-69 boondoggle. Its mayor and several of its city councilpersons campaigned on platforms specifically in opposition to I-69, as did several of the county government's elected officials.
And elected officials they are, swept in with margins that cannot be called anything short of a mandate. In other words, the attitudes and opinions of Bloomington and Monroe County's elected officials can safely be said to reflect the attitudes and opinions of their respective electorates.
In short, Monroe County doesn't want anything to do with the damn thing. We, and Bloomington, consistently rank at the top of all economic performance lists, all business climate friendliness lists, lists of cultural and social amenities (especially when compared to the rest of the state), and we'd like to keep it that way...(MORE)
Fate of 'Easterly's pile' at ArcelorMittal remains unknown
November 15, 2009-by Gitte Laasby, The Post Tribune. "They (ArcelorMittal) went through two inspections. They should have been referred... Anybody else would have been referred," the IDEM source said. "They never said the reason," the source said. "We're handling this differently because Easterly used to work there. That's the assumption."
BURNS HARBOR -- They call it "Easterly's pile."
The heaping mounds of metallic-gray, lumpy steelmaking waste and rusty metal pieces tower up to 35 feet in the air, spread across a 33-acre sandy area in the northeast corner of ArcelorMittal's Burns Harbor property.
Parts of the massive, dirty heaps have sat directly on the ground for up to 24 years, exposed to the elements with no protection of air, soil or the groundwater that flows north to Lake Michigan just a foot below. The waste contains toxics like lead, chromium, cadmium, silver and nickel in concentrations high enough to require disposal in a landfill.
Hidden behind a row of trees 200 feet from the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and the waters of Lake Michigan, the waste doesn't attract much attention. Even at the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, managers have turned a blind eye -- perhaps because ArcelorMittal representatives say the piles have a connection to the man in charge of IDEM.
"They said, 'We call this "Easterly's pile" because he's the one who started it.' And it's never stopped growing," said a confidential source within IDEM. (MORE) Go to Original
Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower
November 12, 2009-by Terry Macallister, The Guardian UK. Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.
The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.
The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.
The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.
In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.
Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this. (MORE) Go to Original
Shale gas-great for fighting coal but a possible disaster where it is extracted
November 11, 2009- by John Blair, valleywatch.net editor. Valley Watch has relished the advent of hydrofracking and the resulting reduction in natural gas prices that it has brought, especially from the Marcellus Shale formation in New York and Pennsylvania
For more than a year, Valley Watch has used declining prices for natural gas as a primary reason that coal gasification should not move forward in Kentucky and Indiana.
Unfortunately, during the Bush Administration, the use of hydrofracking was declared 'exempt" from the Clean Water Act when the process does create inherent danger to drinking water systems in areas where it is used.
Amy Goodman's Democracy Now online television news show did an extensive interview with activist and Toxics Targeting president, Walter Hang on yesterday's program. that can be seen below.
February 1, 2010, byDaniel Hays in the P&C National Underwriter. He said his department would not take part in the survey because “it’s our governor’s position.” Gov. Daniels’ office did not immediately respond to a request for his rationale. Later the state's Acting Insurance Commissioner and General Counsel Doug Webber said the department had opposed it because the survey "makes no meaningful contribution in evaluating company solvency." Illustration © 2007 John Blair
January 30, 2010, by James Bruggers in the Louisville Courier Journal. In assessing nuclear potential, the consultants studied such factors as access to water, ability to keep the public far enough away, seismic risk and potential evacuation routes. Nuclear power plants need lots of water to absorb heat generated by the reactor core. Map: © 2010 Courier Journal.
January 29, 2010-by Joshua Frank in Truthout. While industry does all in its power to talk the Obama administration out of regulating coal combustion waste, new documents uncovered by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility reveal the corrupt influence the utility industry had with the Bush administration on the issue. Photo © 2007 John Blair shows a sludge pit at Alcoa Warrick Operations in southwest Indiana.
January 26, 2010-Lexington, KY. Press release from the pseudonym Midnight Activist. Student pressure on campuses throughout the midwest is beginning to take on a more visible form. 
January 22, 2010, By John Blair, valleyewatch.net editor. As a wider variety of fish have reappeared in the Ohio River and its regional environs, Great Blue herons have made a real comeback and can now be found nearly anywhere that fish are found. Photo © 2010, John Blair 
January 10, 2010-by John Cleves in the Lexington Herald Leader. In 2009, MACED published a report showing that the coal industry takes $115 million more from Kentucky's state government annually in services and programs than it contributes in taxes, due in part to the tax breaks.
January 8, 2010-by Gitte Laasby in the Gary (IN) Post Tribune. Tom Easterly has been IDEM's commissioner since early 2005. In that time IDEM has taken pride in their ability to issue permission for polluters to pollute, almost to whatever extent they desired. Recently a coalition of groups petitioned USEPA to "de-Delegate" IDEM's authority to regulate and enforce the nation's water laws. Pictured: Easterly.
January 7, 2010, By John Blair, valleywatch.net editor. In 2008, for the first time in history, USEPA ignored the advice of it's science panels and staff and implemented a rule that allowed levels of ozone that were not protective of public health.
December 31, 2009, Souther Alliance for Clean Energy. Stephen Smith says, "We need to fully embrace renewable energy and energy efficiency and conservation. Unlike nuclear reactors, solar and wind are truly clean - they are emission free when they're producing electricity, no carbon, no deadly nuclear waste that remains highly radioactive longer than human civilizations have even existed. Illustration © 2010 John Blair
December 20, 2009-by Troutman Sanders LLP in the Washington Energy Report. Valley Watch and Sierra Club challenged the original permit issued to Cash Creek Generating on numerous grounds. We won on this one and others. Now, kentucky has decided to issue yet another permit, even as this EPA decision is issued and will hold a hearing on it on January 15 @ 6:30 PM in the henderson County Courthouse.
December 17, 2009-by John Blair, valleywatch.net editor. For years, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management has has operated as a state economic development agency, ignoring the actual function it is supposed to fulfill. Recently, it is becoming increasingly clear that IDEM is not functioning as intentioned.
November 29, 2009-By Anna Fahey in Grist., The finding is based on the experience of black and Dominican-American families living in the New York City area. Specifically, it indicates that high prenatal exposure to these compounds—automobile exhaust is one example—translates into lower IQ scores by the time a child reaches the age of 5 years.
November 25, 2009-by John Blair, valleywatch.net editor. It seemed like a lot of money but the $1 billion Duke first sought from regulators to build their plant in Edwardsport, IN now seems like a bargain. This week, Duke was back asking for the blood of ratepayers to build their money machine that could cause the Indiana economy to falter.
November 18, 2009- A press release from Physicians for Social Responsibility regarding the enormous health impacts that come from coal. The complete report is downloadable by clicking the link.
November 17, 2009-Press release from Valley Watch regarding the proposed new health standard for Sulfur Dioxide. Valley Watch and Center for Biological Diversity sued EPA to force them to adopt a new standard since they had failed to do so for more than thirty years. 
November 15, 2009, by Gregory Travis in the Bloomington Alternative. Ed. Note: This story coupled with the story below about another Indiana government agency abusing its power below is a really bad indication of how the administration of Mitch Daniels has apparently decided that federal law no longer applies to Indiana. Why the legislature, particularly the democrat controlled House remains mute is a mystery.
November 12, 2009-by Terry Macallister, The Guardian UK. Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.
November 11, 2009- by John Blair, valleywatch.net editor. Valley Watch has relished the advent of hydrofracking and the resulting reduction in natural gas prices that it has brought, especially from the Marcellus Shale formation in New York and Pennsylvania
